
Class _. 
Book-_ 



COiVRICHT IVLllTtSlT 



The HIDING OF THE 

CHARTER 






// ro 



The HIDING OF THE 

CHARTER 



By 
CHARLES J. HOADLY, LL.D. 

Librarian Connedicut State Library. President Connedicut 
Historical Society 




M D C C C C 



f"^-! 



S\(clo 



Second Publication 



3G52G 

Library of Conpr< 

Ifwc Copies Received 
MQi 20 1900 

ScCONO copy 

DtlivertxJ to 

ORCLK DIVISION, 



ONE HUNDRED COPIES PRINTED 



VXc-f-l. 



Copyright by the Acorn Club 



1900 
n. Q '-> O **' 



Hartford Press 
The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company 



ACORN CLUB 



Charles Jeremy Hoadly, Honorary, Hartford 

Frederick Woodward Skiff, West Haven 

William Newnham Chattin Carlton, Hartford 

John Murphy, New Haven 

Albert Carlos Bates, Hartford 

Charles Lewis Nichols Camp, New Haven 

Charles Thomas Wells, Hartford 

George Seymour Godard, Hartford 

Frederick Clarence Bissell, Willimantic 

Joline Butler Smith, New Haven 

William Fowler Hopson, New Haven 

Frank Addison Corbin, New Haven 

Henry Russell Hovey, Hartford 

Frank Butler Gay, Hartford 

Mahlon Newton Clark, Hartford 

William John James, Middletown 



THE FOLLOWING PAPER WHICH WAS PREPARED FOR THE 
CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL SOCIETY WAS ALSO READ 
BEFORE THE NEJV HAVEN COLONT HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 



George Chalmers, on page 298 of his Poh'tkcil 
Annals, published in London in 1780, tells us that 
in the time of King James II the charter of Con- 
necticut was carefully concealed in a venerable elm, 
which to that day was deemed sacred as the pre- 
server of their constitution. This is the earliest 
mention of the hiding of the charter in a tree, so 
far as the present writer knows. Chalmers very 
likely may have had his information from Rev. 
Samuel Peters, who had been forced to flee from 
his native country on account of toryism and was 
then in London, in whose General History of Con- 
necticut published in London the next year, "An 
elm esteemed sacred for being the tree in which 
their charter was concealed " is enumerated among 
the curiosities of Hertford. 

That the tree is called an Elm is no great matter : 
many persons do not discriminate the different 
kinds of trees, and in this part of the country a 
large tree standing by itself is presumably an elm 
rather than an oak. 

Gershom Bulkeley, who wrote his book IVill and 
'Doom in 1692, says: "The charter it seems they 
preserved; J(ames) F(itch) triumphs and tells us it 
is safe at Hartford." But, in 1692, the fact that the 
Colony was in possession of the charter was of far 



8 

greater interest than was the story of how it was 
preserved; and as King William had not then 
recognized the validity of the charter, those who 
had been active in preventing the agent of his pre- 
decessor from getting hold of it naturally would 
not care to boast much of their connection with 
that affair, but, on the other hand, would be inclined 
to keep it as much in the background as might be, 
for reasons of personal safety. 

Now I am not about to say that the charter of 
Connecticut was not hidden in the famous oak 
formerly standing before the Wyllys house. I be- 
lieve it was. I do not see reason to doubt the 
tradition. But there were two charters, and which 
of them was hid in the tree, when it was hid, and 
who hid it, are questions which seem to present 
some difficulties, as will be seen by what follows. 

The charter arrived in this country in September, 
1662. At a Court of Election October 9th of that 
year, held at Hartford, it was publicly read in the 
audience of the freemen and declared to belong to 
them and their successors. Another copy was re- 
ceived before November 17th of the same year, 
brought, as is supposed, by a different ship. The 
freemen, Oct. 9th, 1662, had made choice of 
Samuel Wyllys, John Talcott, and Lt. John AUyn, 
as a committee under oath to take the charter into 
custody in behalf of the freemen. The General 



Assembly, August 19th of the next year, desired 
Governor Winthrop to deliver the duplicate to the 
same committee, to keep it in behalf of the freemen. 
There were some slight differences between the 
copies, not, however, affecting the sense. One 
seems to have ended thus: "By writ of privy seal, 
per fine five pounds."^ This copy has been thought 
by some to have been the first received, because 
several very early transcripts end in the same manner. 
The writer has a seventeenth century copy by an un- 
known hand with the same ending, and other simi- 
lar copies are extant. The copy in the Secretary's 
office does not have the words, "Per fine five 
pounds." That copy is on three skins and is 
thought to have been more highly ornamented than 
the other, which, it has been supposed, was en- 
grossed on two skins. Both were duplicates, but 
naturally the handsomer would probably be selected 
as the principal. It was from the copy now in the 
Secretary's office that the charter was printed as it is 
found prefixed to editions of the statutes prior 

'This phrase is the ear-mark which determines, beyond all doubt, that the 
copy bearing it is the original. The transladon of the entry made on the loth 
day of May, 1662, in the accounts of the clerks of the Hanaper, who took the 
office fees from grantees in respect of such patents, reads as follows : 

"For the Charter of the Governor and Company of the Colony of Con- 
necncut in New England in America of grant to them and their successors 
viij". ix'. 

" For the fee thereupon v". 

" For the Duplicate Charter of the same letters patent, xx». iiij'i.'' 

2 



10 

to the adoption of the state constitution. The 
General Assembly in October, 1700, ordered that 
in printing the (revised) laws the charter should be 
printed at the beginning of each book, but this does 
not seem to have been done; so, in October, 1718, 
it was resolved " that the Secretary draw out a copy 
of the charter of this government and transmit the 
same, as soon as he can, to the printer, who is 
ordered to imprint the same and take off at least 
two hundred copies thereof for the use of the in- 
habitants of this Colony." Green's bill for the work 
was £4:3:8. This is the edition with the date 
1718, usually found with the volume of Acts and 
Laiis printed at New London in 1715, and is the 
first known to have been printed. This was printed 
on four leaves : the title, reverse blank, charter 6 
pp. Some copies of the Laws, edition of 1715, 
have prefixed the charter printed on two leaves, in 
finer type — without a separate title page. The 
charter as printed in 1794, in Hazard's Historical 
Collections^ Vol. II, page 597, ends with: Fer breve 
cle private sigillo^ and was taken from a quarto 
printed in London, 1766, containing a collection of 
American Charters, which as I suppose were derived 
from the records there. 

When it became the policy of the last two Stuart 
kings to break down municipal corporations it was 
not difficult to find a pretext for attacking the 



1 1 



charter of Connecticut. The Colony had, partly 
from supposed necessity and perhaps more through 
ignorance, done various things beyond the strictly 
legal limits of the powers conferred by its charter. 
Accordingly two writs of ([uo warranto were issued 
against the Colony, both dated July 8th, 1685: one 
returnable on the octave of St. Martin,' the other 
on the quinzaine of Easter.^ They were received 
by the Governor July 2 1st, 1686, a considerable 
time after the return days had passed. A third 
writ, dated October 23d, 1686, came to hand on the 
28th of December following, and was returnable on 
the octave of the Purification.^ Special sessions of 
the General Court were called to consider the 
subject. 

Although more powerful corporations had been 
compelled to succumb and Connecticut was poor 
and without influential friends at the King's Court, 
no vote for a surrender of the charter could be ob- 
tained ; many of the freemen choosing, if they must 
be deprived of it, not to be active in parting with 
it, looking on that as a kind of political suicide. 
Addresses were made to the King, asking to be 
continued in the same state, and an agent was 
appointed in London, who, not being in high 

'/. f., Nov. 18, for St. Martin's day is Nov. nth. 
''Apr. 19th. 
3/. e., Feb. 9th. 



12 



Station nor liberally supplied with money, was of 
course unable to effect anything, however well dis- 
posed and desirous he may have been to do so. 

Some leading men in the Colony were of opinion 
that it was best not to contend with the King, for 
the contest would end in but one way, and better 
terms might be hoped for on a voluntary surrender. 
Whereas should the Colony hold out it might be 
divided by the river and the western half annexed 
to New York ; for Governor Dongan of New York 
and Governor Dudley of Massachusetts were each 
desirous to have Connecticut annexed to his own 
government. Among those who were supposed to 
regard submission as the better policy were Gover- 
nor Treat and Secretary Allyn, both of whom were 
appointed members of Andros's Council when Con- 
necticut was annexed to the territory and Dominion 
of New England. Three of the principal magis- 
trates addressed this communication to the General 
Assembly : 

" Gentlemen : Upon the reasons which have been 
laid before you, with many more that might be 
given, we do declare that we do verily believe it is 
for the advantage of this court, freely and volun- 
tarily to submit yourselves to his majesty's dispose, 
and not to begin or hold any further suits in law 
with his majesty, which in no wise can be expected 
will promote our profit or welfare. And for our 



13 

own parts we do declare, and desire you would take 
notice, we are for answering his majesty's expecta- 
tion, by a present submission, and are against all 
further prosecutions or engagements by law-suits in 
opposition to his majesty's known pleasure for our 
submission. 

30th March, 1687. "^^^^ Talcott, 

John AUyn, 
Samuel Talcott." 

There were other men of influence in the Colony 
who were of opinion that it was advisable to accept 
his Majesty's gracious offer to receive the surrender 
of the charter rather than to stand a trial. Among 
these was Fitz John Winthrop, afterwards Governor 
of Connecticut, who although living in New Lon- 
don had been appointed one of the Council for 
New England before Connecticut had been an- 
nexed thereto. To him on February 30, 1686-7, 
Secretary AUyn wrote " I have hoped that this time 
we should have been ready to have joined our 
divisions and to have made an entire body, but by 
our statesmen it is thought not convenient yet, and 
they will not be moved beyond their pace ; notwith- 
standing the advantage that offers to encourage a 
present union, they will not be persuaded to it. It 
looks so like a giving away that which is precious 
to them, which they can rather be passive than 



active in parting with it ; and also those difficulties 
that threaten the standing out, as the procuring his 
majesty's displeasure, making the terms the harder, 
and losing the little share we possibly might have 
in the government if cheerfully submitted to, seems 
of little weight with too many. The result of 
present considerations are that we must stand as we 
are until his Majesty farther dispose of us, and all 
that is gained is our gentlemen rather choose to be 
conjoined with Massachusetts than with any other 
province or colony." 

That the Colony would be deprived of its charter 
seemed inevitable, and so, in anticipation of that 
event, the yet undivided lands were parcelled out 
and townships were ordered to take out patents for 
their grants under the seal of the Colony. And 
here may be a convenient place to explain why in 
Sir Edmund Andros's time we in Connecticut had 
no trouble with respect to land titles as they did in 
Massachusetts : Lands had been granted in the latter 
colony but not under the public seal. Now at 
common law a corporation can only act by its seal. 
While the Massachusetts charter stood those grants 
were good, for no one can take advantage of his 
own wrong, but when that charter fell those grants 
not having been legally perfected necessarily fell 
with it. Sir Edmund Andros offered to confirm 
titles on payment of a moderate quit-rent, but this 



15 

seemed very hard to men who had held the lands 
for almost sixty years and by whose labors they had 
acquired whatever value they possessed. Now the 
General Court of Connecticut so early as May, 1685, 
"for the prevention of future trouble, and that every 
township's grants of land as it hath been obtained 
by gift, purchase or otherways, of the natives and 
grant of this court, may be settled upon them, their 
heirs, successors and assigns forever, according to 
our charter granted by his late Majesty of happy 
memory," as recited in the preamble of the act, 
had ordered that patents should be taken out, sealed 
with the seal of the Colony. These patents, exe- 
cuted with the proper legal formalities while the 
charter was still in force, would be good and valid 
whatever might befall. 

The record of a special session of the General 
Court held at Hartford, June 15th, 1687, ends 
thus: 

" Sundry of the court desiring that the Patent or 
Charter might be brought into the Court, the Sec- 
retary sent for it, and informed the governor and 
court that he had the charter and showed it to the 
court; and the governor bid him put it into the 
box again and lay it on the table, and leave the key 
in the box, which he did forthwith. 

" The court adjourned till the governor or deputy 
see cause to call them together again." 



i6 

Now this is a singular entry and looks as though 
Secretary Allyn had framed it thus in order to ex- 
culpate himself for the disappearance of the charter. 
Perhaps " sundry of the court " were apprehensive 
that he was too willing to give it up to Sir Edmund 
and were determined that it should not be in his 
power to do so. He had produced the charter in 
court, was bidden to lay it on the table and leave 
the key in the box, and the court had adjourned 
without taking further order in the matter, so he 
was relieved of responsibility about it.' 

The summer wore away. The regular session 
of the General Court was held in October, as usual. 
The change in government, which was generally 
expected, did not come. In reply to Andros, who 
pressed for a surrender of the charter, the General 
Court gave as a reason for non-compliance : " We 
have by our several addresses formerly sent to his 
Majesty left ourselves to be guided and disposed by 
his princely wisdom, and have not received any re- 
turn or direction from his Majesty since." 

'In May, 1664, on the eve of the expected arrival of the royal commission- 
ers in New England, the Massachusetts General Court passed this order : 

Forasmuch as it is of great concernment to this commonwealth to keep 
safe and secret our patent, it is ordered the patent and duplicate belonging to the 
country be forthwith brought into the court, and that there be two or three per- 
sons appointed by each house to keep safe and secret the said patent and dupli- 
cate in two distinct places as to the said committee shall seem most expedient. 

Mass. Records, IV, part 2, p. 102. Hutchinson, i, p. 230. 

The commissioners arrived in New England toward the last of July, 1664. 



1? 

The Governor and Secretary by order of the Gen- 
eral Court had written, January 26th, 1686-7, to the 
Earl of Sunderland, secretary of state, after referring 
to the writs of ^//o warranto: "We are his Majesty's 
loyal subjects, and we are heartily desirous that we 
may continue in the same station that we are in, if 
it may consist with his princely wisdom to continue 
us so : But if his Majesty's royal purposes be other- 
wise to dispose of us, we shall, as in duty bound, 
submit to his royal commands; and, if it be to con- 
join us with the other colonies and provinces under 
Sir Edmund Andros, his Majesty's present governor, 
it will be more pleasing than to be joined with any 
other province." 

When this letter was received at Whitehall it was 
easily construed as containing a surrender of the 
charter, and orders were sent to Sir Edmund Andros 
to take the government of Connecticut upon him- 
self Accordingly, having given notice of his inten- 
tion. Sir Edmund came to Hartford on Monday, 
October 31st, toward the close of the day. He was 
attended by several members of his council and by 
his guard, about sixty persons in all. There was 
some conference that evening between him and the 
General Court, but all the record of what took place 
is the following : " A general court held at Hartford, 
October 31, 1687, ^7 order of the governor. 
3 



i8 

" His Excellency, Sir Edmund Andros, Knight^ 
captain general and governor ot his Majesty's terri- 
tory and dominion in New England, b}' order trom 
his Majesty James the second, King ot England. 
Scotland, France and Ireland, the 31 ot October, 
1687. took into his hands the government ot" this 
colony ot Connecticut, it being by his Majesty 
annexed to the Massachusets and other colonies 
under his Excellency's government. Finis.'' 

For what occurred at tJiat evening session we 
have only tradition to depend upon. Jeremy 
Dummer in his Defence of the New England Charters, 
first published in 1721. says that "Sir Edmund 
Andros, then the Kinfi's trovernor of New En2;land, 
did by order from court repair to Hartford, the 
capital of Connecticut, with armed attendants, and 
forcibly seized their charter for the King." 

Dr. Benjamin Trumbull's History of Connecticut, 
printed in 1797, says: "About this time Sir Edmund 
with his suit and more than sixty regular troops 
came to Hartford when the Assembly were sitting, 
demanded the charter and declared the government 
under it to be dissolved. The Assembly were 
extremely reluctant and slow with respect to any 
resolve to surrender the charter or with respect to 
any motion to brintr it forth. The tradition is. that 
Governor Treat strongly represented the great ex- 
pense and hardships of the colonists in planting the 



19 

country, the blood and treasure which they had 
expended in defending it, both against the savages 
and foreigners; to what hartiships and dangers he 
himself had been exposed to for tliat purpose; and 
that it was like giving u[^ his life now to surrender 
the patent and privileges so dearly bought and so 
long enjoyed. The important affair was debated 
and kept in suspense until the evening, when the 
charter was brought and laid upon the table where 
the assembly were sitting. By this time great 
numbers of people were assembled and men suffi- 
ciently bold to enterprise whatever might be neces- 
sary or expedient. The lights were instantly 
extinguished, and one Captain Wadsworth, of 
Hartford, in the most silent and secret manner 
carried off the charter and secreted it in a lar<je hollow 
tree fronting the house of the Hon. Samuel Wyllys, 
then one of the magistrates of the Colony. The 
people appeared all peaceable and orderly. The 
candles were officiously relighted, but the patent 
was gone and no discovery could be made of it or 
of the person who had conveyed it away. Sir 
Edmund assumed the government." 

Governor Roger Wolcott, at the age of 80, in a 
manuscript Memoir relating to Connecticut, written 
for President Clap and dated July 12th, 175'9, says: 
"In October, 1687, Sir Edmund Andros came to 
Hartford. The assembly met and sat late at night. 



20 

They ordered the charters to be set on the table, and 
unhappily or happily, all the candles were snuffed 
out at once, and when they were lighted the char- 
ters were gone. And now. Sir Edmund being in 
town and the charters gone, the secretary closed the 
colony records with the word 'Finis' and all de- 
parted." In 1764, Roger Wolcott, aged 85, gave 
President Stiles this story, which the latter recorded 
in his Itinerary : " Nath. Stanly, father of late Col. 
Stanly, took one of the Connecticut charters, and 
Mr. Talcott, late Gov. Talcott's father, took the 
other, from Sir Edmund Andros in Hartford meet- 
ing-house, — the lights blown out." 

Rev. Thomas Ruggles, minister of Guilford, 1729 
to 1770, succeeding his father, ordained in the same 
town in 1695, in his History of Guilford written in 
1769, but not printed until 1809, speaking of 
Andrew Leete, says : " It is said and believed (that 
he) was the principal hand in securing and preserv- 
ing the charter, when it was just upon the point of 
being given up to Sir Edmund Andros. In his 
house it found a safe retirement until better times." ' 



* In the History of Guilford, from the manuscript of Hon. Ralph D. Smith, 
published in 1877, after his death, in an account of William Seward, on pages 
19 and 20, it is said : 

" For a long time he was captain of the guard in Guilford, and an anec- 
dote is related of him, that, when the charter of the state was supposed to be 
concealed in Guilford, during the usurpation of Edmund Andros, by Governor 
Lecte's family, and delegates were sent down to seize and bring it to Hartford, 



21 

Dummer's statement that the charter was forcibly- 
seized for the King, may be readily dismissed. We 
do not certainly know that Andros even asked for 
it. Apparently Andros did not know of the disap- 
pearance of the charter for he makes no mention of 
it in his letter to the Board of Trade wherein he 
gives an account ot the annexation of Connecticut 
to the Dominion of New England. It was not 
essential to the dissolution of the colonial govern- 
ment that Sir Edmund should have actual posses- 
sion of the charter. He did not get that of Rhode 
Island, but it is stated that the public seals of both 
colonies were delivered up to him. Connecticut 
was effectually annexed to and became a part of the 
Dominion, and the former colonial government 
ceased. The Governor and Secretary were made 
councillors, they and all the assistants, without ex- 
ception, made judges or justices, and all accepted 
and took the oath of ofRce. Probably no one will 
assert that this was done under compulsion. 



Mr. Seward marched his company, with their muskets loaded, down to the 
southeast corner of the green, where the delegates were lodged, and paraded 
them in front of the house to the beat of the drum. On being asked by the 
delegates what they wanted, the captain informed them that he came to escort 
them out of town, and that he would not leave with his men until they had 
left, which must be as soon as possible. The delegates seeing their danger 
accepted the escort thus forced upon them and left. iMr. Seward died March 
2, 1689, aged sixty-two years." Apocrychal. William Seward does not 
appear ever to have been captain. 



22 

Dr. Trumbull is the author of the common story. 
His account is somewhat cmbeUished, but undoubt- 
edly he had his information, in part at least, from 
the traditions of the Wyllys family, and there is 
one point in which they could hardly be mistaken 
— that is, the identification of the tree in which the 
charter was hid. But it may be remarked in pass- 
ing, that in neither edition of his History does Dr. 
Trumbull call it an oak. However, it seems to 
have been called an oak, in print, by Jedidiah 
Morse in his Geography published in 1789 — eight 
years before Dr. Trumbull's H/sfory appeared. It is 
called an oak in the first edition ot Holmes' Annals^ 
1805. Dr. Trumbull is in error in saying that Samuel 
Wyllys was one of the magistrates at the time. He 
had been elected an assistant in 1684, ^^^ ^^^ ^*^^ 
again chosen until the revolution in May, 1689, 
and neither he nor any of his family were holding 
any colonial office in 1687. Dr. Trumbull's ac- 
count seems to imply that there was a meeting of 
the General Court on Monday October 31st, in the 
day time. That may have been, but as Sir Edmund 
and his company came from Norwich that day, 
reckoned thirty-eight or forty miles distance, it is 
certain that they could not have reached Hartford 
before candle light. Indeed I should hardly think 
that he could have met the court before eight 
o'clock. Thirty-eight miles horseback riding is a 



v*^ 



23 

pretty stiff day's work, even on good roads, but two 
centuries ago neither were the roads very good nor 
the faciUties for crossing streams as ample as now ; 
and sixty or so could not ride so fast as one man 
might. Moreover, they would want some refresh- 
ment after their long journey. We must also bear 
in mind the difference of style — Oct. 31, 1687, 
would be now Nov. 10, and the afternoon would be 
pretty short — the sun setting at about 4:37. 

Roger Wolcott was born in Windsor in 1679. 
His opportunities for obtaining information on the 
subject were of the best; for in May, 1715, when he 
was an assistant, this bill was introduced into the 
Lower House : " Upon consideration ot the faithful 
and good service of Capt. Joseph Wadsworth, of 
Hartford, especially in securing the Duplicate 
Charter of this colony in a very troublesome season 
when our constitution was struck at, and in safely 
keeping and preserving the same ever since unto 
this day : This Assembly do, as a token of their 
grateful resentment of such his faithful and good 
service, grant him out of the colony treasury the 
sum of four pounds." ' The bill passed the Lower 
House but was negatived in the Upper. A commit- 
tee of conference was appointed and both houses 
agreed to give Wadsworth twenty shillings.* In 



24 

the early part of the same session Wadsworth, one 
of the deputies for Hartford, had said something 
offensive to some members of the Assembly, particu- 
larly ot the Upper House, for which he was com- 
pelled to make an acknowledgment and receive an 
admonition from the Governor, and the bill making 
him a grant was perhaps intended as an offset for 
the reproof he had received. Of the committee of 
conference, to which reference has been made, 
Roger Wolcott was a member and so, most likely, 
heard from Wadsworth's own lips what occurred on 
that evening of October 31, 1687. He might also 
have heard from Cyprian Nichols, of Hartford, and 
Ebenezer Johnson, of Derby, both members of the 
Lower House in 1715, if they were the persons who 
by the same names were deputies for the same 
towns in June and in October, 1687, whatever in- 
formation they possessed. 

It will probably be thought strange that in neither 
account does Roger Wolcott mention the name of 
Wadsworth. I venture to suggest this possible ex- 
planation tor the omission : The charter when 
brought in would most likely be placed on the 
table before the presiding officer at the upper end 
of the room. Wadsworth not being a member 
of the Court, which then sat as one body and was 
not divided into two houses until 1698, would 
have no right to be there, but Stanly, a deputy 



25 

for Hartford, and Talcott, an assistant, would. 
We must remember that evening meetings of any 
kind were then rarely held and so the facilities 
for lighting a meeting house slender, very likely 
limited to a few candles on the table, which may 
have been put out by design or by accident, for the 
end of October is apt to be breezy ; and before the 
candles were relighted Stanly or Talcott took the 
duplicate charter; it was passed on to Wadsworth, 
who carried it away. This may have happened be- 
fore Andros came in. Now Wadsworth's part 
would be only a subordinate one and left no strong 
impression on Wolcott's mind, the most important 
act being that of the person who took it from the 
table. From the smallness of the grant originally 
proposed to be given him and the action of the 
General Court about it, it would seem as if that 
body did not regard what Wadsworth did in the 
affair as of great importance. Stanly and Talcott 
were both dead before 1715. It was the Duplicate 
only which Wadsworth secured and which he con- 
cealed in his cellar according to a tradition among 
the descendants, and not in the oak. Roger Wol- 
cott makes no mention of a tree in connection with 
the taking of the charter. 

Wadsworth kept the duplicate in his possession 
from 1687 to 1715, as stated in the grant made him 
4 



26 

in that year. In the meantime we get this glimpse 
of it: "At a meeting of the governor and council 
in Hartford, May 25th, 1698. The duplicate of 
the patent by order from the governor and council 
being brought by Capt. Joseph Wadsworth, and he 
affirming that he had order from the general assembly 
to be the keeper of it, the governor and council con- 
cluded that it should remain in his custody till the 
general assembly or the council shall see cause to 
order otherwise ; and the said duplicate was de- 
livered to him by the order of the council." 

A few words about the original charter: In 1817 
or 1818, while the late John Boyd, Secretary of 
Connecticut 1858-61, was preparing for college at 
the Hartford Grammar School he boarded in the 
family of Rev. Dr. Flint of the South Church. 
Coming in one day from school he noticed on the 
work-stand of Mrs. Bissell, the doctor's mother-in- 
law, a dingy piece of parchment covered on one 
side with black letter manuscript. In answer to his 
inquiries, Mrs. Bissell told him that having occasion 
for some pasteboard, her friend and neighbor, Mrs. 
Wyllys, had sent her this. Mr. Boyd proposed to 
procure her a piece of pasteboard in exchange for 
the parchment, to which Mrs. Bissell consented. It 
was not, however, until six or eight years had 
elapsed that Mr. Boyd examined the parchment 
with care, when for the first time he learned what its 



27 

contents were. So much of the original as remains, 
being about three-fourths of the second skin, is now 
in the possession of the Connecticut Historical 
Society where it was placed by Mr. Boyd. 

As to what Mr. Ruggles says about Andrew 
Leete and his having the charter in his house, I see 
no inherent improbability in the story. Perhaps 
the charter might have been safer in Guilford than 
in Hartford between November 1687 and May 
1689. The Ruggles MS. was unknown to Dr. 
Trumbull, and perhaps he never saw the two state- 
ments I have quoted from Roger Wolcott. It 
may be that Leete is one of those referred to when, 
in June, 1687, "sundry of the court" desired that 
the patent or charter might be brought in. 

Whether the taking and concealing the charter 
occurred June 15th, 1687, ^^^ ^^^^ of the duplicate 
on the last day of October in that year, or whether 
both, as Roger Wolcott seems to say, were taken at 
the latter date we cannot say with positiveness. 
The affair was conducted so silently and privately 
that at the time and for a considerable period after- 
wards it was not generally known even that the 
charter had disappeared. There was nothing dra- 
matic or sensational in the matter. Secrecy was 
essential both for the security of the persons con- 
cerned and for the safety of the charter. 

I find it difficult to believe that both charters 



28 

were laid on the table on that Monday evening. 
We find on record that the charter was produced in 
Court June 15th, 1687, ^^^ ^^^^ on the table at the 
adjournment. We have the account also that Wads- 
worth secured the duplicate, October 31st. We do 
not find any statement that he secured both. Possi- 
bly Dr. Trumbull who did not Hve in Hartford, 
knowing the tradition of the charter having been 
hid in the tree and finding on record mentioned 
that Wadsworth secured the duplicate, assumed that 
he concealed it there^ the doctor perhaps being un- 
aware that there were two copies. At any rate Dr. 
Trumbull, writing more than a hundred years after 
the event, is the sole authority for that story, and I 
have mentioned the tradition among Wadsworth's 
descendants that he hid it, not in the oak but in his 
house. 

When her colonial government was dissolved and 
Connecticut was annexed to the Dominion of New 
England no one could have foreseen that the charter 
would ever be revived ; so the charter must have 
been preserved more for sentimental reasons than 
from a well-grounded expectation that it would 
again become of practical importance as an instru- 
ment of government. 

Roger Wolcott tells us that Nathaniel Stanly 
took one of the charters and John Talcott took the 
other. Now may it not have been that Stanly, 



29 

after the Court adjourned in June, 1687, ^^^^ ^^^ 
original charter, and hid it in the tree? Stanly 
lived in Main street, just north of the little river. 
Talcott and Wadsworth lived to the northward of 
the meeting house. Talcott from a document cited 
on an earlier page appears to have been willing to 
comply with the King's demands; still he may have 
been the person who took the duplicate from the 
table in October. He died in 1688. Stanly, as we 
know, was an active promoter of the revolution of 
1689, and it may be that he was of the party 
opposed to the surrender in 1687. Leete may after- 
wards have taken the charter to Guilford. At any 
rate the charter was not left long in the oak, as there 
was danger of its being injured by moisture or 
vermin or of its being found by some one, perhaps 
unfriendly. However preserved, it was ready to be 
produced on May 9th, 1689. I have an impression 
that, as in Rhode Island, so in Connecticut, it was 
customary to show the charter to the people on 
election day. Had it been out of their power to do 
so on May 9th, 1689, would it not have been 
difficult for the former government to resume the 
administration, and would there not have been 
found a much larger number unwilling to obey the 
resumed government ? There was enough of that 
class as it was. 

This much is established : That both charters were 



30 

preserved ; that one of them, presumably the dupli- 
cate which is now in the office of the Secretary of 
State, was preserved, through the instrumentality 
of Wadsworth who retained it until 1715- But it 
is not certain who put the original charter into the 
tree or when it was done. 

About 1840, the charter was kept in its box in 
the Secretary's office, unprotected by any case ; and 
persons used to get off bits of the box or of the 
leather covering it as souvenirs. The seal had then 
disappeared, probably having been taken bit by bit 
by relic hunters. I have understood that so long 
ago as 1810, but about half of it remained. It was 
of dark green wax. The box and some fragments 
of the seal are now in the possession of the Connecti- 
cut Historical Society. The charter was framed in 
Secretary Hinman's time, and the present one is the 
third frame which has enclosed it. The first was of 
mahogany; the second veneered with wood ot the 
Charter oak presented by I. W. Stuart; the third, 
procured at the time of removal to the present 
capitol. 

Joseph Wadsworth, the son of William, was 
born in Hartford in 1647 or 1648. In Sept., 1675, 
as sergeant, he was ordered to conduct a party ot 
twenty men to assist in defending Westfield, Mass. 
In January following he was appointed by the 
Council, lieutenant in Capt. John Stanly's com- 



31 

pany, — part of the forces from Hartford county. 
He was propounded as a freeman of the Colony 
in May and admitted in Oct., 1676. He was 
probably made lieutenant of the Hartford north side 
train band in Sir Edmond Andros's time, and cer- 
tainly established as such by the General Court Sept. 
1689, and captain in Oct., 1697. He represented 
Hartford in the Assembly at seventeen sessions 
between 1685 and 1715, having Cyprian Nichols as 
his colleague each time, and was called to sit in the 
Council in Aug. 1726. The story of his threat, in 
Oct. 1693, to make the sun shine through Gov. 
Fletcher told by Dr. Trumbull ' seems flatly contra- 
dicted in a pamphlet published by order of the 
Governor and Assistants in 1694.^ In Feb. 1702-3 
he opposed the constable of Hartford, who was at- 
tempting to arrest a fugitive slave. In October, 
1703, while a deputy, he had been fined for speak- 
ing reproachful words in the General Assembly, 
though the fine was remitted in October of the next 
year.^ In May, 1708, for threatening the sheriff, 
the Court of Assistants placed him under bonds of 
"twenty pounds, lawful money, conditioned for his 
peacable and good behaviour towards all her 



II, p. 393. 

-Col. Conn. Hist. Soc, 1, 99. 
3 Col. Recs. of Conn., IV, 453. 



^7 



32 



Majesty's subjects, and especially her officials." ' 
He seems to have been a bold man acting much 
upon impulse and not very careful to guard his 
tongue. The stories about him with respect to 
the charter and with respect to Gov. Fletcher are 
certainly in character. He died, according to Sav- 
age, in 1730. There is no gravestone to his 
memory. 



' Record Court of Assistants, II, 95. 



'"^•^^o^ 



